IAG: BA restructuring may cost 12,000 jobs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fursty Ferret
Perhaps this is the ideal time to bring aviation into line with the rest of the world then?. LIFO in other industries died out in the 70's when the power of the unions was broken, now it is not Government diktat that is enforcing fundamental change but economic reality.
Would the industry actually be any worse if it was not based on seniority?
Perhaps this is the ideal time to bring aviation into line with the rest of the world then?. LIFO in other industries died out in the 70's when the power of the unions was broken, now it is not Government diktat that is enforcing fundamental change but economic reality.
Would the industry actually be any worse if it was not based on seniority?
If you leave your job in almost any other industry you can find an equivalent one that offers more or less identical pay / terms and conditions.
The low cost airlines get away with it because they have expansion, and turnover of pilots. Whilst command opportunities come faster, they may very well have a shortage of copilots who are ready for upgrade when needed and have no option but to employ DECs.
A legacy airline typically has very low pilot turnover and very little expansion. 10-15 years to get the fourth stripe is normal, join at the wrong time and it can go up to 20 in some airlines.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps this is the ideal time to bring aviation into line with the rest of the world then?. LIFO in other industries died out in the 70's when the power of the unions was broken, now it is not Government diktat that is enforcing fundamental change but economic reality.
Would the industry actually be any worse if it was not based on seniority?
Would the industry actually be any worse if it was not based on seniority?
How would you handle redundancies? Sure, you could use training records, but how in a way that's fair to both the youngest and oldest, and simultaneously the most junior and senior person in the company? Most people have squeaky clean records (i would assume). Picking names at random? Hardly seems better than LIFO and probably legally dubious. Total flying hours? Should ten thousand hours trundling around in a Seneca give you an advantage against someone who's got 5000 hours PIC of an Airbus? What about university qualifications?
Would you, as someone that's been in the company for a long time, accept a pay-cut to provide a flat pay structure? Right now that would benefit me but in ten years...
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Coast to Coast...
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps this is the ideal time to bring aviation into line with the rest of the world then?. LIFO in other industries died out in the 70's when the power of the unions was broken
An accountant or HR manager can be employed by a multitude of companies in many different industries. In the UK, how many equivalent jobs are available for a BA B777 Captain ?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fursty Ferret
Well I would point out that companies across the globe handle redundancies without using LIFO every single day without a problem, even BA has done that in the past.
I have not got a dog in this fight having retired from the industry 5 years ago, but reading the threads on different airlines and the way that they are all responding it just seems to that LIFO causes as many problems as it solves. With regards to pay cuts personally I think they are inevitable but I do have my doubts how useful they actually are. Take EZY, a couple of months ago their crews were lauding the fact that they had all come together and accepted pay cuts to ensure that redundancies were not needed - now I am reading that the company is not saving enough cash flow and could be out of business by the end of the year. To me if the market reduces in size by 75% then your only option to save the company is to reduce the size of your company by 75% to meet the new reality.
Well I would point out that companies across the globe handle redundancies without using LIFO every single day without a problem, even BA has done that in the past.
I have not got a dog in this fight having retired from the industry 5 years ago, but reading the threads on different airlines and the way that they are all responding it just seems to that LIFO causes as many problems as it solves. With regards to pay cuts personally I think they are inevitable but I do have my doubts how useful they actually are. Take EZY, a couple of months ago their crews were lauding the fact that they had all come together and accepted pay cuts to ensure that redundancies were not needed - now I am reading that the company is not saving enough cash flow and could be out of business by the end of the year. To me if the market reduces in size by 75% then your only option to save the company is to reduce the size of your company by 75% to meet the new reality.
You’re missing the point. You’re not going to be able to make a profit by shrinking the business by 75% either so that line of thinking is flawed. It’s what makes this whole situation such an excrement show.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: North London at last
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet II
Your argument is predicated on the EZY false news item. The statement "hanging by a thread" was clearly an off the cuff comment made to try to get BALPA members to accept the pay cut deal. And they are not talking about this year......they may be in trouble at the end of next year if 2021 summer is poor.
The market maybe 25% today........but it won't be in a few short months. Staff are not the main cost to an airline as you well know so to cut your business by 75% would mean a reduction of 75% in the number of hulls. No way back then, so you may as well chuck the towel in now.
Your argument is predicated on the EZY false news item. The statement "hanging by a thread" was clearly an off the cuff comment made to try to get BALPA members to accept the pay cut deal. And they are not talking about this year......they may be in trouble at the end of next year if 2021 summer is poor.
The market maybe 25% today........but it won't be in a few short months. Staff are not the main cost to an airline as you well know so to cut your business by 75% would mean a reduction of 75% in the number of hulls. No way back then, so you may as well chuck the towel in now.
Why seniority lists exist
Hec7or’s reference to Ernie Gann’s great work “Fate is the Hunter” made me think that maybe there should maybe be just a word here about why seniority has historically had such a unique position in pilot employment, especially compared to other professions. Unless things have changed radically in the last 20 years, as far as I am aware there is no other profession (e.g. law, medicine, architecture) where every single practitioner is required regularly to demonstrate his or her skills to an independent authority. Similarly, the pilot-in-command is the only type of employeEE who has legal responsibilities in international law which are on the same level as those of his or her employER.
Under the ICAO umbrella obligations are assigned separately to the State, the Operator, and the Pilot in Command. That’s why although ICAO is a United Nations organisation (where only States have total power), in ICAO meetings the Operators and Pilots are both represented (via IATA and IFALPA) and participate fully in decision-making. Individual Operators and Pilots have their own obligations assigned to them by their State authority via their licences. To ensure safety these must be maintained at a constant minimum level.
All this is a long way round to get the point that there is no other type of employee who has to PROVE, once or twice a year, that they can do their job properly to someone who is NOT their employer. In other professions, once someone has their initial qualification, their competence is only questioned AFTER SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG.
How does that link to seniority systems? Most people would probably agree that in an ideal world where there is competition for a job, it should go to the person best able to do it. But in practice this usually means that even if there are objective criteria such as basic qualifications, it must lead to subjective judgements being made by individual managers about individual candidates, especially regarding continuing competence after initial qualification. Some do well, others flounder: ideally the less competent may get overtaken by the more competent – but the less competent may do better by various ways including nepotism, politics and all the other biases we are increasingly conscious of.
In the pilot group however, everyone has had to continually achieve the same minimum competence level as verified by an outside assessment. (And yes I do know that’s not always the case in reality.) So on that basis if you want to ensure fairness in the system, you have to include something else. Generally, of two equally well qualified candidates, the one most likely to do the job best is probably the one with the most experience. And within a single organisation the best (but by no means perfect) measure of experience within that organisation is length of service. Hence the seniority lists. So most pilots associations historically have said that it is better for the COLLECTIVE good that between equally SUITABLE candidates, preference should be given to the most senior.
That does not help a lot when dealing with such traumatic problems as the pilot profession is facing now. But it does mean that when trying to resolve things and spread the pain, the basics should be forgotten.
Under the ICAO umbrella obligations are assigned separately to the State, the Operator, and the Pilot in Command. That’s why although ICAO is a United Nations organisation (where only States have total power), in ICAO meetings the Operators and Pilots are both represented (via IATA and IFALPA) and participate fully in decision-making. Individual Operators and Pilots have their own obligations assigned to them by their State authority via their licences. To ensure safety these must be maintained at a constant minimum level.
All this is a long way round to get the point that there is no other type of employee who has to PROVE, once or twice a year, that they can do their job properly to someone who is NOT their employer. In other professions, once someone has their initial qualification, their competence is only questioned AFTER SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG.
How does that link to seniority systems? Most people would probably agree that in an ideal world where there is competition for a job, it should go to the person best able to do it. But in practice this usually means that even if there are objective criteria such as basic qualifications, it must lead to subjective judgements being made by individual managers about individual candidates, especially regarding continuing competence after initial qualification. Some do well, others flounder: ideally the less competent may get overtaken by the more competent – but the less competent may do better by various ways including nepotism, politics and all the other biases we are increasingly conscious of.
In the pilot group however, everyone has had to continually achieve the same minimum competence level as verified by an outside assessment. (And yes I do know that’s not always the case in reality.) So on that basis if you want to ensure fairness in the system, you have to include something else. Generally, of two equally well qualified candidates, the one most likely to do the job best is probably the one with the most experience. And within a single organisation the best (but by no means perfect) measure of experience within that organisation is length of service. Hence the seniority lists. So most pilots associations historically have said that it is better for the COLLECTIVE good that between equally SUITABLE candidates, preference should be given to the most senior.
That does not help a lot when dealing with such traumatic problems as the pilot profession is facing now. But it does mean that when trying to resolve things and spread the pain, the basics should be forgotten.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the second time I have seen this stated and I still dont understand this argument. If you are delivering a service you deliver at the level the customer demands. So if there is only a demand for 25% of current flights then airlines will reconfigure to match that demand. The idea that suddenly this becomes uneconomic and no airline will operate at that level simply does not make sense.
It may be that the industry changes to meet the new economic reality but that is what the rest of the economy is doing already.
Then I suggest you read up on some basic economics. Your unit cost will increase quite steeply particularly if an airline like BA shrank to that degree. Couple that increase in costs with trying to service the unaltered debt and things get ugly pretty fast. It’s nowhere near as simple as “shrinking to meet the demand” in afraid.
what you’re saying isn’t inherently wrong. If aviation was a declining industry (let’s say like Kodak film dealing with the rise of digital / phone cameras), as work dried up over time airlines would get rid of aircraft as leases came up, lay off staff etc in the same way that Kodak have closed factories, reduced output etc. While tough for all involved, it’s a part of how capitalism works. Companies, industries rise & fall along with the market.
The situation airlines have is more akin to the closure of the car plants in the 80s / 90s - the government deciding they were non viable and pulling the rug from under them (in this instance via quarantine, or state aid). Airlines are still geared for 2019 levels of output, and have no support to gracefully shrink to a more appropriate level for the market.
The situation airlines have is more akin to the closure of the car plants in the 80s / 90s - the government deciding they were non viable and pulling the rug from under them (in this instance via quarantine, or state aid). Airlines are still geared for 2019 levels of output, and have no support to gracefully shrink to a more appropriate level for the market.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thetimesreader84
But the rest of the economy doesn't get this support to 'gracefully shrink' - you either arrange your business to meet the economic reality or you go bust - as much of the economy is doing already.
But the rest of the economy doesn't get this support to 'gracefully shrink' - you either arrange your business to meet the economic reality or you go bust - as much of the economy is doing already.
Jet II
Either that or bankruptcy, yes.
(I’m not saying that BA cannot shrink, that’s what they are doing of course but it’s a law of diminishing returns. There comes a point where it’s not viable to shrink anymore, shrinking by 75% is way beyond that. Especially as they also have the slots in Heathrow to keep hold of.)
Either that or bankruptcy, yes.
(I’m not saying that BA cannot shrink, that’s what they are doing of course but it’s a law of diminishing returns. There comes a point where it’s not viable to shrink anymore, shrinking by 75% is way beyond that. Especially as they also have the slots in Heathrow to keep hold of.)
Last edited by Plastic787; 29th Sep 2020 at 08:44.
Jet II
just because everyone’s in the same situation, doesn’t make it ok.
However the banks, the train operating companies, even pubs / restaurants have all had help to “meet the new economic reality” over the last 6 months. Airlines, Arts & Ents etc, not so much.
The government are picking winners. Sorry, “Viable” business (presumably as decided by “blinky” Cummings)
just because everyone’s in the same situation, doesn’t make it ok.
However the banks, the train operating companies, even pubs / restaurants have all had help to “meet the new economic reality” over the last 6 months. Airlines, Arts & Ents etc, not so much.
The government are picking winners. Sorry, “Viable” business (presumably as decided by “blinky” Cummings)
